This trade was the best move this franchise has had in a long time. Bogut is a great Center that makes a major difference and that's what the team hasn't had in decades. It's also right that we wouldn't have Barnes, looking like a franchise player.

Blackfoot, I completely agree that you ALWAYS trade a small for a big, there's no argument there. If both players are 100%, this isn't even a discussion. Hell, even if Bogut is 60%, it's still a win. But the issue at hand is if Bogut can ever play 5 consecutive games again during his Warrior tenure. If that's notthe case and he rides the bench 90% of the season, you can't say we won the trade.

I like Ezeli too... But let's not get carried away. Udoh held down the starting 5 spot for 25 minutes a night and hung around the top of the blocks-per-minute rankings (he wasn't simply a good shotblocker; he was a great one. Better than Foyle or Turiaf, IMO). Ezeli has yet to prove he's as good as Udoh, though his sheer size and aptitude to learn make him more than capable of surpassing Epke in the future. Depends on which big develops better.

If we wanted Barnes, we could still have pulled the phantom groin injury on Ellis, the same way we hooked out Lee at the end of the year. We didn't need Bogut to tank; Ellis wasn't exactly getting us to the playoffs in the first place. In that sense, keeping the Barnes pick was possible without dealing Ellis for damaged goods.

Bottom line... You're saying you'd deal your best asset for a guy that plays 15 games a year? C'mon, bro. The Warriors could have done better. A healthy Bogut is beyond worth it, but the key word is healthy.

everyone saying even if bogut doesn't pan out it's still a good trade are wrong on two levels - you waste a trade asset and take ton of contracts only to find yourself lucked in into your draft pick and lucky enough to get ezeli at 30 as well. luck is never a part of such kind of decisions, or at least should not be. and you are still lucky that curry's ankle holds its own.

Blocks should be the last line of defense. Udoh gets more blocks than Ezeli but Ezeli plays great defense. He moves better, gets offensive rebounds, and understands how to retreat on defense. I liked Udoh too, man, but what Ezeli is doing for us in 15-20 minutes a night heavily outweighs what Udoh ever did for us.

8th ave wrote:Blocks should be the last line of defense. Udoh gets more blocks than Ezeli but Ezeli plays great defense. He moves better, gets offensive rebounds, and understands how to retreat on defense. I liked Udoh too, man, but what Ezeli is doing for us in 15-20 minutes a night heavily outweighs what Udoh ever did for us.

Yeah, that's it, my exact opinion. I just wanted to emphasize that Udoh is a better blocker...and that's about it.

Ok, we'll get techical then. Adjusted Factor Four rankings, at the time of the trade:

Steve Von Horn wrote:Inclusion of play-by-play data is what allows for a deeper analysis of individual defensive value than anywhere else you can find on the internet. As for the results, out of 434 qualifying NBA players, Ekpe Udoh ranks No. 2 (behind Lebron James), while Brandon Jennings is at No. 247 and Monta Ellis lags back at No. 319 overall. Andrew Bogut? No. 36.

I realize he's been gone since March, so nobody remembers how good Udoh was, but c'mon. Most of us here were more upset about dealing him than Monta... Suddenly, the guy with the catchy name is better than him because of 15 games at 16 minutes a pop? Please. We'll have to agree to disagree here, boys. Udoh showed on screens, rotated well, boxed out, hustled, improved the overall team defense... He was a lot more than just the hollow shot-blocker you guys are dismissing him as.

Udoh got beat out by Henson. Tell me where Henson is on that list and why isn't Udoh starting over him?

Like I said.I like Udoh, but I'd rather have Ezeli. I was one of those who was disappointed that he was included in the trade. Ezeli can guard bigger opposing bigs more effectively than Udoh. If I could I'd take both no questions asked, but if I had to choose it's definitely Ezeli > Udoh. Not even a question, man.

32 wrote:Blackfoot, I completely agree that you ALWAYS trade a small for a big, there's no argument there. If both players are 100%, this isn't even a discussion. Hell, even if Bogut is 60%, it's still a win. But the issue at hand is if Bogut can ever play 5 consecutive games again during his Warrior tenure. If that's notthe case and he rides the bench 90% of the season, you can't say we won the trade.

I like Ezeli too... But let's not get carried away. Udoh held down the starting 5 spot for 25 minutes a night and hung around the top of the blocks-per-minute rankings (he wasn't simply a good shotblocker; he was a great one. Better than Foyle or Turiaf, IMO). Ezeli has yet to prove he's as good as Udoh, though his sheer size and aptitude to learn make him more than capable of surpassing Epke in the future. Depends on which big develops better.

If we wanted Barnes, we could still have pulled the phantom groin injury on Ellis, the same way we hooked out Lee at the end of the year. We didn't need Bogut to tank; Ellis wasn't exactly getting us to the playoffs in the first place. In that sense, keeping the Barnes pick was possible without dealing Ellis for damaged goods.

Bottom line... You're saying you'd deal your best asset for a guy that plays 15 games a year? C'mon, bro. The Warriors could have done better. A healthy Bogut is beyond worth it, but the key word is healthy.

32, let me lay some hypothetical math on you.

If someone told you if we traded Ellis for a the second best big man, but there was only a 50 percent chance he'd play and even if he didn't we'd still get a promising young big man because of this trade. Would you do the trade at the percentage of him playing more than five games.

The Warriors new should have drafted Udoh to begin with. The team should have drafted Greg Monroe instead of Udoh. Larry Riley, while channeling his inner Twardzik-Saint Jean-Mullin, had stated that Biedrens had the center position locked up for the Warriors, so the need was for a power forward, Udoh, instead of for a center, Monroe...sigh...

uptempo wrote:The Warriors new should have drafted Udoh to begin with. The team should have drafted Greg Monroe instead of Udoh. Larry Riley, while channeling his inner Twardzik-Saint Jean-Mullin, had stated that Biedrens had the center position locked up for the Warriors, so the need was for a power forward, Udoh, instead of for a center, Monroe...sigh...

32 wrote:Blackfoot, I completely agree that you ALWAYS trade a small for a big, there's no argument there. If both players are 100%, this isn't even a discussion. Hell, even if Bogut is 60%, it's still a win. But the issue at hand is if Bogut can ever play 5 consecutive games again during his Warrior tenure. If that's notthe case and he rides the bench 90% of the season, you can't say we won the trade.

I like Ezeli too... But let's not get carried away. Udoh held down the starting 5 spot for 25 minutes a night and hung around the top of the blocks-per-minute rankings (he wasn't simply a good shotblocker; he was a great one. Better than Foyle or Turiaf, IMO). Ezeli has yet to prove he's as good as Udoh, though his sheer size and aptitude to learn make him more than capable of surpassing Epke in the future. Depends on which big develops better.

If we wanted Barnes, we could still have pulled the phantom groin injury on Ellis, the same way we hooked out Lee at the end of the year. We didn't need Bogut to tank; Ellis wasn't exactly getting us to the playoffs in the first place. In that sense, keeping the Barnes pick was possible without dealing Ellis for damaged goods.

Bottom line... You're saying you'd deal your best asset for a guy that plays 15 games a year? C'mon, bro. The Warriors could have done better. A healthy Bogut is beyond worth it, but the key word is healthy.

32, let me lay some hypothetical math on you.

If someone told you if we traded Ellis for a the second best big man, but there was only a 50 percent chance he'd play and even if he didn't we'd still get a promising young big man because of this trade. Would you do the trade at the percentage of him playing more than five games.

Of course I would, given that scenario.

But Bogut is hardly regarded as the second best center in the league; in fact, there are plenty of circles outside the Bay Area that would say he might not even be Top 10. I think I, personally, would be comfortable calling him Top 5... But, again, that's assuming he's healthy. Taking his injury history into account, not many people will put him in the top 10.

And again, I believe Udoh and Ezeli are comparable, so you lose a heady defensive 4 for a wide-bodied defensive 5. Having Lee made Udoh look expendable, especially since we had no center. But regardless of how he's failed to adjust in Milwaukee, he played unbelievably for us and dominated plus-minus lists on a perennial loser. That's something worth noting, whether you guys wanna slight Udoh or not. The fact is, 95% of this board would have tried to figure out a rebuttal that DIDN'T include Udoh if they were presented with this trade in February. That's just real talk.

If we're entertaining hypotheticals, would anybody have preferred to roll the dice on a 6'11 center if it meant sacrificing Udoh last year? I seriously doubt it, but with hindsight bias in play, we'll never know for sure.

uptempo wrote:The Warriors new should have drafted Udoh to begin with. The team should have drafted Greg Monroe instead of Udoh. Larry Riley, while channeling his inner Twardzik-Saint Jean-Mullin, had stated that Biedrens had the center position locked up for the Warriors, so the need was for a power forward, Udoh, instead of for a center, Monroe...sigh...

I know, always draft talent, not need.

I agree; I was on the Monroe train at the time too.

But I think Udoh turned out well. Not as well as Monroe, obviously, but I can't put him below Ezeli after 15 sporadic games. Just can't do it.

32 wrote:Blackfoot, I completely agree that you ALWAYS trade a small for a big, there's no argument there. If both players are 100%, this isn't even a discussion. Hell, even if Bogut is 60%, it's still a win. But the issue at hand is if Bogut can ever play 5 consecutive games again during his Warrior tenure. If that's notthe case and he rides the bench 90% of the season, you can't say we won the trade.

I like Ezeli too... But let's not get carried away. Udoh held down the starting 5 spot for 25 minutes a night and hung around the top of the blocks-per-minute rankings (he wasn't simply a good shotblocker; he was a great one. Better than Foyle or Turiaf, IMO). Ezeli has yet to prove he's as good as Udoh, though his sheer size and aptitude to learn make him more than capable of surpassing Epke in the future. Depends on which big develops better.

If we wanted Barnes, we could still have pulled the phantom groin injury on Ellis, the same way we hooked out Lee at the end of the year. We didn't need Bogut to tank; Ellis wasn't exactly getting us to the playoffs in the first place. In that sense, keeping the Barnes pick was possible without dealing Ellis for damaged goods.

Bottom line... You're saying you'd deal your best asset for a guy that plays 15 games a year? C'mon, bro. The Warriors could have done better. A healthy Bogut is beyond worth it, but the key word is healthy.

32, let me lay some hypothetical math on you.

If someone told you if we traded Ellis for a the second best big man, but there was only a 50 percent chance he'd play and even if he didn't we'd still get a promising young big man because of this trade. Would you do the trade at the percentage of him playing more than five games.

Of course I would, given that scenario.

But Bogut is hardly regarded as the second best center in the league; in fact, there are plenty of circles outside the Bay Area that would say he might not even be Top 10. I think I, personally, would be comfortable calling him Top 5... But, again, that's assuming he's healthy. Taking his injury history into account, not many people will put him in the top 10.

And again, I believe Udoh and Ezeli are comparable, so you lose a heady defensive 4 for a wide-bodied defensive 5. Having Lee made Udoh look expendable, especially since we had no center. But regardless of how he's failed to adjust in Milwaukee, he played unbelievably for us and dominated plus-minus lists on a perennial loser. That's something worth noting, whether you guys wanna slight Udoh or not. The fact is, 95% of this board would have tried to figure out a rebuttal that DIDN'T include Udoh if they were presented with this trade in February. That's just real talk.

If we're entertaining hypotheticals, would anybody have preferred to roll the dice on a 6'11 center if it meant sacrificing Udoh last year? I seriously doubt it, but with hindsight bias in play, we'll never know for sure.

It doesn't matter what others thing because it is only arguable if Bynum is better or not. He's arguably the second best, and guaranteed third best. It's clear cut Dwight, Bynum, Bogut.

However, the top two centers in the league are out and people forget how good the two after Dwight really are.

I'd take Festus over Udoh because not only are they already comparable, Udoh is still better currently, but Festus has a much higher ceiling, especially considering the fact he has only played basketball for four years in his entire life. Just raw talent.